Updated Guidance Regarding The Risk ofAllergic Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccines and Recommended Evaluation and Management: A GRADE Assessment, and International Consensus Approach.

This guidance updates 2021 GRADE recomendations regarding immediate allergic reactions following COVID-19 vaccines and addresses re-vaccinating individuals with 1st dose allergic reactions and allergy testing to determine re-vaccination outcomes. Recent meta-analyses assessed the incidence of severe allergic reactions to initial COVID-19 vaccination, risk of mRNA-COVID-19 re-vaccination after an initial reaction, and diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient testing in predicting reactions. GRADE methods informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommenations. A modified Delphi panel consisting of experts in allergy, anaphylaxis, vaccinology, infectious diseases, emergency medicine, and primary care from Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, South Africa, the UK, and the US formed the recommendations. We recommend vaccination for persons without COVID-19 vaccine excipient allergy, and re-vaccination after a prior immediate allergic reaction. We suggest against >15-minute post-vaccination observation. We recommend against mRNA vaccine or excipient skin testing to predict outcomes. We suggest re-vaccination of persons with an immediate allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccine or excipients be performed by a person with vaccine allergy expertise, in a properly equipped setting. We suggest against pre-medication, split-dosing, or special precautions because of a comorbid allergic history.

Temporal examination of adult food insecurity amongst Canadian families managing food allergy.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric food allergy is associated with excess familial food costs compared to families without allergy. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, food prices have increased substantially. OBJECTIVE: To understand the temporal pattern of food insecurity amongst Canadian families with food allergy from the year prior to the pandemic, through May 2022. METHODS: Using data collected electronically from families reporting food allergy using a validated food security questionnaire, we estimated food insecurity, including categories of food insecurity (marginal, moderate, secure) in the year prior to the pandemic (2019; Wave 1), and the first (2020; Wave 2) and second years of the pandemic (2022; Wave 3). RESULTS: Participants in all waves were commonly in 2 + adult, 2 child households. Less than half of participants (Waves 1-3: 45.7%, 31.0%, and 22.9%, respectively) reported household incomes below the median Canadian. Common allergies were milk, eggs, peanuts and tree nuts. In Wave 1, 22.9% of families reported food insecurity; corresponding numbers at Waves 2 and 3 were 30.6% and 74.4%, respectively, representing an overall increase of 225.6%, including notable increases in severe food insecurity. CONCLUSION: Canadian families with pediatric food allergy report higher rates of food insecurity compared to the general Canadian population, especially during the pandemic.

Diagnostic accuracy of vaccine and vaccine excipient testing in the setting of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

For persons with immediate allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, skin testing (ST) to the vaccine/excipients (polyethylene glycol[PEG] and polysorbate 80 [PS]) has been recommended, but has unknown accuracy. To assess vaccine/excipient ST accuracy in predicting all-severity immediate allergic reactions upon re-vaccination, systematic review was performed searching Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the WHO global coronavirus database (inception-Oct 4, 2021) for studies addressing immediate (≤4 h post-vaccination) all-severity allergic reactions to 2nd mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in persons with 1st dose immediate allergic reactions. Cases evaluating delayed reactions, change of vaccine platform, or revaccination without vaccine/excipient ST were excluded. Meta-analysis of diagnostic testing accuracy was performed using Bayesian methods. The GRADE approach evaluated certainty of the evidence, and QUADAS-2 assessed risk of bias. Among 20 studies of mRNA COVID-19 first dose vaccine reactions, 317 individuals underwent 578 ST to any one or combination of vaccine, PEG, or PS, and were re-vaccinated with the same vaccine. Test sensitivity for either mRNA vaccine was 0.2 (95%CrI 0.01-0.52) and specificity 0.97 (95%CrI 0.9-1). PEG test sensitivity was 0.02 (95%CrI 0.00-0.07) and specificity 0.99 (95%CrI 0.96-1). PS test sensitivity was 0.03 (95%CrI 0.00-0.0.11) and specificity 0.97 (95%CrI 0.91-1). Combined for use of any of the 3 testing agents, sensitivity was 0.03 (95%CrI 0.00-0.08) and specificity was 0.98 (95%CrI 0.95-1.00). Certainty of evidence was moderate. ST has low sensitivity but high specificity in predicting all-severity repeat immediate allergic reactions to the same agent, among persons with 1st dose immediate allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. mRNA COVID-19 vaccine or excipient ST has limited risk assessment utility.

Vaccine confidence among those living with allergy during the COVID pandemic (ACCORD): A scoping review.

Background: Reports of allergic reactions to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, coupled with an "infodemic" of misinformation, carry the potential to undermine confidence in the COVID-19 vaccines. However, no attempts have been made to comprehensively synthesize the literature on how allergic disease and fear of allergic reactions to the vaccines contribute to hesitancy. Objectives: Our aim was to review the academic and gray literature on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and allergic reactions. Methods: We searched 4 databases (CINAHL, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and Embase) using a search strategy developed by content and methodologic experts. No restrictions were applied regarding COVID-19 vaccine type, country of study, or patient age. Eligible articles were restricted to 10 languages. Results: Of the 1385 unique records retrieved from our search, 60 articles (4.3%) were included. Allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine were rare but slightly more common in individuals with a history of allergic disease. A fifth of the studies (13 of 60 [22%]) discussed vaccine hesitancy due to possibility of an allergic reaction. Additionally, the present review identified research on details of vaccine-related anaphylaxis (eg, a mean and median [excluding clinical trial data] of 12.4 and 5 cases per million doses, respectively) and allergic reactions (eg, a mean and median [excluding clinical trial data] of 489 and 528 cases per million doses, respectively). Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among individuals living with allergy and among those with no history of allergic disease may be affected by fear of an allergic reaction. Despite the low incidence of allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine, fear of such reactions is one of the most commonly cited concerns reported in the literature.

Temporal trends in anaphylaxis ED visits over the last decade and the effect of COVID-19 pandemic on these trends.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is an acute systemic and potentially fatal allergic reaction. We evaluated trends in yearly rates of anaphylaxis in a pediatric Emergency Department (ED) in Montreal, Canada. METHODS: A prospective and retrospective recruitment process was used to find families of children who had presented with anaphylaxis at the Montreal Children's Hospital between April 2011 and April 2021. Using a uniform recruitment form, data were collected. Anaphylaxis patterns were compared to clinical triggers using descriptive analysis. RESULTS: Among 830,382 ED visits during the study period, 2726 (26% recruited prospectively) presented with anaphylaxis. The median age was 6 years (IQR: 0.2, 12.00), and 58.7% were males. The relative frequency of anaphylaxis cases doubled between 2011-2015, from 0.22% (95% CI, 0.19, 0.26) to 0.42 March 2020, the total absolute number of anaphylaxis cases and relative frequency declined by 24 cases per month (p < 0.05) and by 0.5% of ED visits (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of anaphylaxis has changed over the years, representing modifications in food introduction strategies or lifestyle changes. The decrease in the frequency of anaphylaxis presenting to the ED during the COVID pandemic may reflect decreased accidental exposures with reduced social gatherings, closed school, and reluctance to present to ED.

Characterizing the use of virtual care in primary care settings during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, Canada implemented restrictions to curb viral transmission of COVID-19, which resulted in abrupt disruptions to conventional (in-person) clinical care. To retain continuity of care the delivery of primary care services shifted to virtual care. This study examined the nature of virtual visits, characterizing the use and users of virtual care in primary care settings from March 14/20 to June 30/20 of the COVID-19 pandemic.  METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of primary care providers in Manitoba, Canada that participate in the Manitoba Primary Care Research Network (MaPCReN) and offered ≥ 1 virtual care visit between 03/14/20 and 06/30/20 representing 142,616 patients. Tariff codes from billing records determined the visit type (clinic visit, virtual care). Between 03/14/20, and 06/30/20, we assessed each visit for a follow-up visit between the same patient and provider for the same diagnosis code. Patient (sex, age, comorbidities, visit frequency, prescriptions) and provider (sex, age, clinic location, provider type, remuneration, country of graduation, return visit rate) characteristics describe the study population by visit type. Generalized estimating equation models describe factors associated with virtual care.  RESULTS: There were 146,372 visits provided by 154 primary care providers between 03/14/20 and 06/30/20, of which 33.6% were virtual care. Female patients (OR 1.16, CI 1.09-1.22), patients with ≥ 3 comorbidities (OR 1.71, CI 1.44-2.02), and patients with ≥ 10 prescriptions (OR 2.71, 2.2-1.53) had higher odds of receiving at least one virtual care visit compared to male patients, patients with no comorbidities and patients with no prescriptions. There was no significant difference between the number of follow-up visits that were provided as a clinic visit compared to a virtual care visit (8.7% vs. 5.8%) (p = 0.6496). CONCLUSION: Early in the pandemic restrictions, approximately one-third of visits were virtual. Virtual care was utilized by patients with more comorbidities and prescriptions, suggesting that patients with chronic disease requiring ongoing care utilized virtual care. Virtual care as a primary care visit type continues to evolve. Ongoing provision of virtual care can enhance quality, patient-centered care moving forward.

vACcine COnfidence amongst those living with alleRgy during the COVID pandemic (ACCORD): a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Reports of allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines have been documented, which may also contribute to hesitancy. Despite the low likelihood that the COVID-19 vaccine will trigger an allergic reaction, we and others have reported that families with allergy remain vaccine hesitant due to concerns of COVID-19-vaccine-triggered anaphylaxis. OBJECTIVE: To present our scoping review protocol, that will inform a forthcoming living scoping review in which we will investigate the peer-reviewed and grey literature on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and allergic disease and/or allergic reactions following a COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: Informed by Arksey and O'Malley framework for methodological review, we have developed a search strategy with content and methodological experts, and which has undergone Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies review. A search of four scientific databases, as well as gray literature, will be performed without restriction to articles by type of COVID-19 vaccine, or country of study, and will include publications in the ten languages our team can handle. Bi-monthly search alerts based on the search strategy will be generated. RESULTS: The first search will result in a stand alone peer reviewed scoping review. Bi-monthly updates will be posted on a pre-print server. Depending on the volume of literature, these updates will be synthesized and submitted for peer-review at 6 and/or 12 months. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy amongst individuals with allergy persists, despite very low risk of serious adverse reactions. Our living scoping review, which includes multiple forms of knowledge translation, will be a rigorous way to address hesitancy.

Changes in food-related costs during the COVID-19 pandemic among families managing food allergy.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the supply, cost, and demand for certain foods, but it is not clear how these changes have affected food-allergic households. Objective: To describe the changes in food-related costs that have followed COVID-19, as reported by higher- and lower-income households with a food-allergic member. Methods: Between May 1-June 30, 2020, Canadian households, with at least one food-allergic member, completed an online survey on food shopping and preparation habits before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The sample was divided into binary groups, either higher or lower than the sample median income. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multiple regression. Results: The sample was comprised of 102 participants (i.e., 51/ income group). The three most common food allergies amongst both groups were peanuts, tree nuts and milk. Since the start of the pandemic, both groups reported greater monthly direct grocery costs, although costs amongst the higher-income group were twice as high as the lower-income group ($212.86 vs. $98.89, respectively). Indirect food preparation costs were similarly elevated. Higher-income households with food procurement difficulties reported increased indirect shopping costs following the outbreak of COVID-19, whereas those without such difficulties reported decreased costs. Lower-income households with allergies to milk, wheat, or eggs (i.e., staple allergy) experienced a larger change in indirect food preparation costs following the outbreak of COVID-19 relative to those with other food allergies ($244.58 vs. -$20.28, respectively; p = 0.03). Conclusion: Both higher and lower income households with food allergy reported greater direct food costs and indirect food preparation costs following the COVID-19. Households with staple allergy and those with difficulties finding their typical food items were particularly affected.

Elementary School Teachers' Perceptions of COVID-19-Related Restrictions on Food Allergy Management.

(1) Background: Approximately 7% of Canadian children live with a food allergy (FA). Pre-COVID-19, ~20% of anaphylactic reactions occurred in schools. Yet, teachers reported poor FA-related knowledge, and experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic are not well-studied. Additionally, teachers' management approaches vary widely. We aimed to describe elementary school teachers' perceptions about FA management during the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) Methods: Using a semi-structured interview guide, English-speaking elementary school teachers in Winnipeg, Canada were interviewed virtually. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed thematically; (3) Results: Most teachers were female and taught in public schools. Two themes were identified. Theme 1, COVID-19 restrictions made mealtimes more manageable, capturing the positive impacts of pandemic restrictions such as seating arrangements and enhanced cleaning. Limited lunchtime supervision prompted some teachers to assume this role. Theme 2, Food allergy management was indirectly adapted to fit changing COVID-19 restrictions, describing how changing restrictions influenced FA-related practices. FA training was offered virtually with less nursing support. Class cohorts and remote learning decreased teachers' perceived risk and FA-related management responsibility; (4) Conclusions: COVID-19-related practices were perceived as positively influencing in-school FA management, although unintended consequences, such as increased supervisory roles for teachers and reduced nursing support, were described.

Coronavirus disease 2019 and pediatric asthma: friend or foe?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The interplay of asthma and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in children is yet unknown. The purpose of this review is to determine the interplay of asthma and asthma therapeutics and COVID-19. RECENT FINDINGS: There is no evidence to date that asthma is a risk factor for more severe COVID-19 outcomes, especially in children. There is actually some basis to suggest that children with atopic asthma may be at reduced risk of asthma exacerbations during COVID-19. The impact of asthma therapeutics on COVID-19 outcomes is unclear, but guidance is relatively uniform in recommending that those with asthma remain on current asthma medications. A focus on social determinants of health may be increasingly important during the pandemic and beyond. SUMMARY: Asthma in children appears to be more friend, than foe, during COVID-19.

COVID-19 and the importance of effective risk communication with children.

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, effective risk communication is essential to mitigate the mental health impact on children and their families. Effective risk communication involves being honest but yet reassuring, framing issues in an actionable way, and modeling realistically reassuring communication among adults. Health care providers may discuss with families principles of modeling good media consumption habits to mitigate misinformation on social media. In addition, health numeracy and health literacy need to be integrated into proper risk communication.

Risk of Second Allergic Reaction to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is a highly effective strategy to prevent infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes. The best strategy for a second dose of vaccine among persons who had an immediate allergic reaction to their first SARS CoV-2 vaccination is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of severe immediate allergic reactions (eg, anaphylaxis) to a second dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine among persons with immediate allergic reactions to their first vaccine dose. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the World Health Organization Global Coronavirus database were searched from inception through October 4, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Included studies addressed immediate allergic reactions of any severity to a second SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose in persons with a known or suspected immediate allergic reaction (<4 hours after vaccination) after their first SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose. Studies describing a second vaccine dose among persons reporting delayed reactions (>4 hours after vaccination) were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Paired reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects models were used for meta-analysis. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach evaluated certainty of the evidence. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Risk of severe immediate allergic reaction and repeated severe immediate allergic reactions with a second vaccine dose. Reaction severity was defined by the reporting investigator, using Brighton Collaboration Criteria, Ring and Messmer criteria, World Allergy Organization criteria, or National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases criteria. RESULTS: Among 22 studies of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines, 1366 individuals (87.8% women; mean age, 46.1 years) had immediate allergic reactions to their first vaccination. Analysis using the pooled random-effects model found that 6 patients developed severe immediate allergic reactions after their second vaccination (absolute risk, 0.16% [95% CI, 0.01%-2.94%]), 232 developed mild symptoms (13.65% [95% CI, 7.76%-22.9%]), and, conversely, 1360 tolerated the dose (99.84% [95% CI, 97.09%-99.99%]). Among 78 persons with severe immediate allergic reactions to their first SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination, 4 people (4.94% [95% CI, 0.93%-22.28%]) had a second severe immediate reaction, and 15 had nonsevere symptoms (9.54% [95% CI, 2.18%-33.34%]). There were no deaths. Graded vaccine dosing, skin testing, and premedication as risk-stratification strategies did not alter the findings. Certainty of evidence was moderate for those with any allergic reaction to the first dose and low for those with severe allergic reactions to the first dose. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of case studies and case reports, the risk of immediate allergic reactions and severe immediate reactions or anaphylaxis associated with a second dose of an SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine was low among persons who experienced an immediate allergic reaction to their first dose. These findings suggest that revaccination of individuals with an immediate allergic reaction to a first SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose in a supervised setting equipped to manage severe allergic reactions can be safe.

School Asthma Care During COVID-19: What We Have Learned and What We Are Learning.

The focus of this article is to review school asthma care during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Asthma is listed as a risk factor in some guidelines, although children with asthma appear to not be at increased risk of severe respiratory outcomes compared with children without asthma during the pandemic. Differentiating COVID-19 from allergic disease is very difficult in the school-aged children. For school management, there is firm evidence that masks do not exacerbate underlying lung conditions including asthma, and evidence to date supports that children with asthma can learn in-person at school because they do not appear to be at increased risk of COVID-19 morbidity or mortality. For children and adolescents, the COVID-19 vaccine has been demonstrated to be safe and well tolerated. School asthma management includes remaining on prescribed asthma medications. Asthma management, as with management of all pediatric conditions, must also factor in the impact of adverse social determinants and health disparities. Broadly, the pandemic has also served as a call to resource stewardship and innovation and allowed practitioners to consider how this may impact asthma care moving forward.

The Revenge of Unintended Consequences of Anaphylaxis-Risk Overdiagnosis: How Far We Have Come and How Far We Have to Go.

Overdiagnosis of anaphylaxis risk is an underappreciated aspect of anaphylaxis prevention. Whereas the benefits of anaphylaxis-risk prevention are well known, potential harms resulting from preemptive approaches to mitigate anaphylaxis-risk are not insignificant. Still, great progress has been made in recent years to avoid the unintended consequences of anaphylaxis-risk overdiagnosis. Reflection on recent advances in the use of diagnostic testing, as well as the application of diagnostic labels, provides an important perspective to understand how far the specialty of allergy and immunology has come in improving the lives of patients and families. Examples of recent paradigm shifts in anaphylaxis-risk management include approaches to peanut allergy prevention without screening, deferral of corticosteroids to prevent biphasic anaphylaxis reactions, reevaluation of reflex use of emergency medical services for resolved community anaphylaxis, and an approach to penicillin allergy delabeling with direct oral challenge. Routine medical practices to decrease anaphylaxis risk can have lifelong impacts for patients-beyond just preventing anaphylaxis. As our understanding of these trade-offs evolves, it becomes necessary to weigh both the benefits and the harms of past management approaches. Because medicine remains a science of uncertainty and an art of probability, a critical approach to risk mitigation remains necessary to find the often-elusive balance in anaphylaxis prevention.

The COVID-19 pandemic: Adverse effects on the social determinants of health in children and families.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the impact of social determinants on the experience of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic within the pediatric population, how this impact may influence the long-term health and security of children, and what measures can be taken to ameliorate this impact moving forward. DATA SOURCES: Nonsystematic review of relevant literature and news sources. STUDY SELECTIONS: Relevant literature and news sources. RESULTS: There have been increases in housing insecurity and food insecurity during the pandemic, including global increases in poverty. Public policies such as school closures have had a disproportionate impact on those facing adverse social determinants. There has been a dramatic increase in reports of abuse-related injuries and other injuries indicative of child abuse during the pandemic. In addition, there are disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 based on race and ethnicity within the United States. It is clear that children are facing more adverse determinants as a result of this pandemic and that there are both short-term and long-term implications associated. For those living in poverty or with other adverse social determinants of health, the pandemic has made a bad situation worse. Ongoing studies are required to measure the impact of COVID-19 on those with adverse social determinants, in particular among children. CONCLUSION: Social determinants of health must be part of pandemic research priorities, public health and vaccination goals, and economic policy implementation. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has further served to shed a light on the broad disparities that exist within our society and their direct and indirect impacts on health outcomes.